The photo below is the cover of the Nov. 29, 2010, edition of Focus, one of the three major German news weeklies. (Focus — not as turgid and politically tendentious as Der Spiegel, not salacious like Stern.)

The headline, “Prima Klima!” takes advantage of the rhyme in German (PREE-muh, KLEE-muh). The sub-title on the cover is, “Rethinking It: Global warming is good for us.”

In the magazine itself, the story’s headline is “It’s getting warmer — Good!”

So which U.S. publication is willing to examine the same issues, report the same facts and challenge the same preconceptions and matters of faith?

In a video promoting the magazine, author Christian Pantle describes the piece. Our translation:

The climate summit is taking place this week in Cancun, where countries will again wrestle with how best to fight global warming. We approach the question this way: Is global warming really terrible? Does it really have only disadvantages? Does it really have only catastrophic consequences? Because until now, it’s always been maintained that any change is always change for the worse, when really a change can have good and bad sides, which can also produce positive results.

No one has really looked into this. It’s a quite a remarkable taboo in Germany.
(continue reading…)

The 112th Congress better not try to block the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of greenhouse gases, The New York Times warns not so subtly in its news pages, “E.P.A. Limit on Gases to Pose Risk to Obama and Congress“:

[The] newly muscular Republicans in Congress could also stumble by moving too aggressively to handcuff the Environmental Protection Agency, provoking a popular outcry that they are endangering public health in the service of their well-heeled patrons in industry.

“These are hand grenades, and the pins have been pulled,” said William K. Reilly, administrator of the environmental agency under the first President George Bush.

He said that the agency was wedged between a hostile Congress and the mandates of the law, with little room to maneuver. But he also said that anti-E.P.A. zealots in Congress should realize that the agency was acting on laws that Congress itself passed, many of them by overwhelming bipartisan margins.

The final paragraph is a paraphrase of Reilly’s comments, so who knows if he actually used the invidious word “zealots,” but we’ll assume that he did argue that the EPA is acting on a Congressionally passed law.

That’s just not so. The 111th Congress failed to pass the Waxman-Markey bill or any legislation to regulate greenhouse gases. The Clean Air Act, which the U.S. Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA expanded far beyond its original legislative intent, contained no authority for the EPA to single out specific emitters like refineries and power plants for regulatory limits. The EPA’s “tailoring rule” that does so is an obvious tactic meant to ease the adoption of an economy-controlling regulatory regime for which there is neither constitutional nor statutory authority.

If the Times — and the Obama Administration — were so confident of the story’s thesis, the paper wouldn’t have had to grant anonymity* to a senior official on the weakest of grounds: He, or more likely she, feared being criticized. To wit:
(continue reading…)

“60 Minutes” ran a segment Sunday on the growth of natural gas production in the United States thanks to hydrofracturing; the technology uses pressurized fluids to crack shale formations deep underground to release the gas. Given the CBS program’s tendency to sensationalize, we were a little surprised to see industry representatives make such positive comments about the piece, “Energy: The Pros and Cons of Shale Gas Drilling: Emerging Energy Source Burns Cleaner Than Coal, Could Reduce U.S. Dependence On Foreign Oil.”

As The Times-Leader of Wilkes-Barre reported in “TV report focuses on gas drilling”:

Chris Tucker, of EnergyInDepth.org, an organization that promotes the benefits of natural gas drilling, said the segment was “fairly balanced,” although the show didn’t get everything right.

“I think they did a great job of telling the story of real people, everyday people, all across the country whose lives have changed for the better thanks to the development of this clean, American resource,” Tucker said.

“They didn’t quite get it right when they attempted to venture into the regulatory history of hydraulic fracturing. The reality is that fracturing technology is among the most thoroughly regulated procedures that takes place at the wellsite, which is a big reason why it’s been able to compile such a solid record of safety and performance over the past 60 years of commercial use.”

The most heated debates over hydrofracking are occurring in Pennsylvania and New York, regions where the Marcellus Shale formation is being developed (less so in New York). Critics often claim methane contaminates water wells and even causes explosions. A “60 Minutes” scene showed a man lighting a flame while filling a water jug from his well. But, as Travis Windle of the Marcellus Shale Coalition points out in the Times-Leader story, “Pennsylvania has a long and well-documented history of naturally occurring methane entering private water wells. ‘It will take private water well standards and fact-based reporting on pre-existing methane in water wells from shallow sources of contamination to demonstrate how safe shale gas development is,’ he said.” (continue reading…)

USA Today on Friday editorialized in support of warning labels on cigarette packs meant to repulse would-be smokers by showing them images of disease, death and doom. As the headline suggests, “Graphic warnings turn tables on cigarette marketers,” the core argument is that after all the advertising those lousy tobacco companies have done, why, they deserve it.

It’s always troubling to see newspaper opinion pages argue against First Amendment rights. Thankfully, as is its practice, the paper printed a rebuttal directly below its editorial, a piece by Dan Jaffe, executive vice president of government relations for the Association of National Advertisers. From “A massive censorship scheme“:

Unlike all other governmentally mandated ad disclosures, this is not simply a requirement to provide truthful, neutral information to the public. Rather, it is a transparent effort to utilize the cigarette pack and ads to stigmatize the product and as a medium for the government’s anti-tobacco messages.

The Supreme Court has made clear, however, that private companies cannot be coerced to spend or utilize their own money or property to become the government’s ventriloquist dummies, billboards or megaphones.

Despite claims to the contrary, these proposals would create broad precedents for the advertising community. The Supreme Court forcefully holds that all product categories, however controversial, have equal protection under the First Amendment.

Nor is it plausible that these proposals, justified on the powerful convincing impact of visual imagery, will be applied only in the “unique” case of tobacco.

We’re reminded of EPA’s recent labeling scheme, sticking letter grades on vehicles according to their fuel-efficiency. What happens when the public insists on continuing to buy cars that get a B-minus grade or below? Instead of an educational label, which is what the original cigarette labels were, we can imagine exhortations — “You can help save the environment by buying vehicles with higher grades than C” — and then demonizations: “If you buy this car, you are helping to cause rising ocean levels that will drown the people of Nauru and Bangladesh, especially all the children who can’t swim.” And then, the graphic photos.

Reduction ad absurdum and slippery slope arguments, we know. But it’s also history.

Of all the outtakes from the documentary-style movie, “Crude,” now posted online by The Corporate Counsel (see below), we like Video 5.

Entitled “Smoke and mirrors and bulls—,”  the video shows New York trial lawyer Steven Donziger at his most arrogant, commenting: “This is Ecuador. You can say whatever you want. At the end of the day there’s a thousand people around the courthouse, you’re going to get what you want. Sorry, but it’s true.”

What an imperious Norte Americano, contemptuously dismissing Ecuador’s judiciary as just something to be manipulated. You would think Ecuador’s leaders would be offended at this trial lawyer imperialism, but the leftist government of President Rafael Correa has been cheering it on.

There are least some judicial authorities who are not amused, however: “Ecuador disbars judge who heard Chevron case.”

Congratulations to Corporate Counsel for being the first media outlet to post the videos of the outtakes from the documentary-style movie “Crude” that have revealed the trial lawyer/activist lawsuit against Chevron for environmental damage in Ecuador to at its core a multi-billion-dollar shakedown against the U.S. company.

The magazine’s sister publication, The American Lawyer, obtained copies of the outtakes from the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, after Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered their release to the public.  Corporate Counsel has now posted the key videos with short summaries from Michael Goldhaber, the reporter who has provided the most thorough coverage of the court proceedings in New York.

From “EXCLUSIVE: Chevron In Ecuador — the Tapes the Plaintiffs Don’t Want You to See“:

In the final version of Crude — the 2009 Joel [sic] Berlinger documentary on the epic environmental suit brought by Amazon tribespeople against Chevron Corporation in Ecuador — lead U.S. plaintiffs’ attorney Steven Donziger remarks: “This is something you would never do in the United States, but Ecuador, you know, this is how the game is played, it’s dirty.”

If Donziger would say something so provocative for the final cut, reasoned Chevron’s lawyers at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, then just imagine how outrageous he must look in the extra footage.

Well, the public no longer needs to use its imagination.

As Goldhaber explains, Chevron views the first two outtakes (there are six total) as the most legally damning, showing the team of lawyers/activists orchestrating the supposedly independent court-appointed expert’s damage assessment.

• Video 1: “Plaintiffs’ lead Ecuadorian lawyer, Pablo Fajardo, gives a PowerPoint presentation to his team that envisions extensive coordination with the independent damages expert.” You mean the same Pablo Fajardo who won the ostensibly prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize in 2008?
• Video 2: “The day after the PowerPoint presentation where the Ecuadorian plaintiffs laid out their plan to coordinate with the court-appointed expert, one of plaintiffs’ consultants suggests that it was ‘bizarre’ that the meeting included ‘perito,’ which means ‘[the] expert.’” That expert is Richard Cabrera, who recommended the $27 billion damage figure.

The PR front group in the lawsuit, the Amazon Defense Coalition, claims that ex parte contacts are common in Ecuador. Sure, and no one worries that one side in the lawsuit gets to write the expert’s report and pick the damage figures.

Corporate Counsel is, of course, a special-interest publication, reaching an audience of mostly business attorneys. Now it’s up to all the major media outlets that have covered the litigation against Chevron — The New York Times and “60 Minutes” come mind — to follow-up and give these outtakes the attention they deserve.  Thomson/Reuters also requested copies of the videos from the U.S. District Court, so there’s a powerful media distribution system available.

Until then, good job, Corporate Counsel!

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan of the Southern District of New York has just issued an order (.pdf file) making outtakes from the documentary-style film, “Crude,” available to the public. 

Footage from Joe Berlinger’s movie has been available to the attorneys involved in the contingency-fee litigation against Chevron for environmental damage in Ecuador. Transcripts from the outtakes have also been entered into the court record, documenting the  manipulation of the judicial process by Steven Donziger, the lead U.S. trial lawyer, and the U.S. and Ecuadorian legal team/activists. (Shopfloor, “‘Crude’ Footage Reveals Lies Behind Trial Lawyers’ Suit Against Chevron.”)

However explosive, the transcripts still fail to capture the full disdain for the truth shown by the players behind the litigation and PR campaign against Chevron.  Thanks to Judge Kaplan’s Oct. 7 order, now everyone can see the video that shows the plaintiff’s team scheming and swearing and orchestrating the shakedown against the company. From the order:

Reporters with Thomson Reuters and with The American Lawyer magazine and ALM Media have requested copies to a total of approximately ten compact disks filed as Exhibit A to a declaration of Kristen Hendricks [DI 14 -10 MC 0002]; Exhibits A and D to another declaration of Ms. Hendricks [DI41 – 10 MC 0002]; and Exhibits 1 and 2 to the declaration of Paul E. Dans [DI 40-10 MC 0002]. The parties have no objection to the requests.

Accordingly, the Clerk shall provide copies of these disks to the requesters and any member of the public who requests copies of the same disks upon payment of the reasonable cost of duplication and blank media.

We were disappointed to see that “60 Minutes” was not one of the requesters asking for copies of the videos. The CBS news-entertainment magazine delivered a miserably one-sided report on the litigation in May 2009, “Amazon Crude,” that accepted as fact the trial lawyers’ thesis: Chevron is a corporate monster that does not care that its predecessor, Texaco, polluted Ecuador’s Amazon with no regard for the native people, so damn right they should pay up.

Along with “Crude” and William Langewiesche’s evocative story-telling in Vanity Fair, “Jungle Law,” the “60 Minutes” piece represented one of the most powerful PR weapons in the U.S. trial lawyers’ litigation war against Chevron. Of course, as this Columbia Journalism Review analysis concluded, “How 60 Minutes Missed on Chevron,” the report fell short on facts and relied instead of innuendo.

Judge Kaplan’s order provides “60 Minutes”  a great opportunity for more serious journalism in the form of a powerful follow-up segment, recounting how their producers and reporter Scott Pelley gave too much credence to the trial lawyers’ claims, failed to appreciate the legitimacy of Chevron’s arguments, and ultimately produced an unfair and inaccurate account of the litigation.

It’s a heck of story: Foul-mouthed New York trial lawyer and supposedly heroic activists work with left-wing Ecuadorian government to corrupt the courts and shake down a U.S. company for billions of dollars.

“60 Minutes,” you already have all the earlier footage shot in Ecuador. Now the damning, explosive outtakes from “Crude” are available just for the price of copying the files onto DVDs.

What a great opportunity for serious journalism.

To The New York Times, the “rule of law” is a strange concept that warrants scare quotes. Back in the day, the big media companies were more familiar with the underpinnings of the American Republic and its free-market system.

Here’s a public service announcement broadcast by CBS Radio during the May 14, 1949 episode of “Phillip Marlowe” called “The Promise to Play.”

A man who knows something about cars makes a better driver than a man who’s completely blank about what’s underneath the hood. And in the same way, a man who knows something about our American economic system is able to be a better citizen than a man who hasn’t any idea at all about what makes the wheels go around. Understanding our system of mass production enables one to feel renewed pride in the high standard of living this kind of production has helped provide. And it’s understanding, too, that enables us o work at some at our system’s defects – like sharp ups and downs in prices and jobs.  So read, study, listen – and with all of us working together, we can increase our productivity still further and provide for even wider distribution of benefits.

The audio clip is here. The full episode is available at Archive.org.

From Ira Stoll’s The Future of Capitalism blog, “Weiner, Waxman Set Gold Hearing”:

Just as the government is trying to prevent people from investing in anything other than T-Bills by raising taxes on taxable interest and dividends to confiscatory levels, it’s also trying to prevent you from parking your wealth in assets, like gold, that compete with the paper dollars issued by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury. A press release from Rep. Anthony Weiner, Democrat of New York, not yet (as of this instant) posted on Mr. Weiner’s Web site, announces that a September 23 hearing of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection (a subcommittee of Rep. Henry Waxman’s Commerce Committee) will focus on “legislation that would regulate gold-selling companies, an industry who’s [sic] relentless advertising is now staple of cable television.”

If all it takes to inspire an inquisitorial committee hearing is heavy TV advertising, to become “staple of cable television,” then when’s the hearing on personal injury lawyers and class-action attorneys?

Since the blog post, the subcommittee has provided more detail on the hearing, which is now scheduled for 10 a.m. Thursday, Sept. 23. A bill has been introduced and will be discussed, H.R. 6149, to require disclosures to consumers by coin and precious metal bullion dealers.

Responding to a post at Instapundit, Stoll comments further, “Answering Glenn Reynolds on Gold.”

In the world of smaller daily newspapers, Mondays and Saturdays always competed to produce the thinnest and dullest editions. Saturdays at least had the advantage of high school sports coverage to attract readers. Mondays offered a local business columnist or community round-up, a feature story to anchor the front page, and maybe dross spun into breaking-news gold by the weekend reporter.

The Wall Street Journal clearly runs on a different schedule, in a different news universe all together. The relatively new Saturday edition is more featurish than the other days, true, but it still has so much of interest, including long interviews like Kimberly Strassel’s talk with Ken Feinberg, the federal BP claims adminstrator, or, “Mr. Fairness.”

And Mondays, well, Mondays….!

All these stories and commentaries today are a good read.

Mark Whitehouse, “Some Firms Struggle to Hire Despite High Unemployment, “With a 9.5% jobless rate and some 15 million Americans looking for work, many employers are inundated with applicants. But a surprising number say they are getting an underwhelming response, and many are having trouble filling open positions.”

Michael P. Fleischer, “Why I’m Not Hiring,” a commentary from the president of Bogen Communications in Ramsey, N.J.: “A life in business is filled with uncertainties, but I can be quite sure that every time I hire someone my obligations to the government go up. From where I sit, the government’s message is unmistakable: Creating a new job carries a punishing price.” (continue reading…)